• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

techspotSimCity Benchmark CPU

C

csbin

Senior member
http://www.techspot.com/review/648-simcity-performance/

Dual-core processors are fairly useless and even the Core i3-3220 was limited to just 23fps 🙁

mXHwFNf.png




DQOxgGi.png


gHhOvQz.png
 
poor performance by the i3, and when you consider the price difference ($130 to $180) for some i5 like the 3.1GHz 3350P, it's hard to justify not going with the i5 for a gaming PC,
it would be almost twice the framerate for this.

the 920 still delivers amazing performance considering the low clock.
 
SPBHM said:
poor performance by the i3, and when you consider the price difference ($130 to $180) for some i5 like the 3.1GHz 3350P, it's hard to justify not going with the i5 for a gaming PC,
it would be almost twice the framerate for this.

the 920 still delivers amazing performance considering the low clock.
Click to expand...

There is no reason the i3 should score what it does. Specially not when the game rarely if ever passes 30% CPU usage on a quad.

Also the benchmark is hugely flawed. I own Simcity and so does my GF. And I cant even relate to those benches. Not to mention its impossible to rerun 2 exact benchmarks in that game.
 
ShintaiDK said:
Also the benchmark is hugely flawed. I own Simcity and so does my GF. And I cant even relate to those benches. Not to mention its impossible to rerun 2 exact benchmarks in that game.
Click to expand...

...even if used the same saved games, and do nothing for 1 minute?

to tell the truth, i can't see a game like SimCity would really be beneficial getting high frames...just not having deeps or shutters and the gameplay would be flawless
 
Olikan said:
...even if used the same saved games, and do nothing for 1 minute?

to tell the truth, i can't see a game like SimCity would really be beneficial getting high frames...just not having deeps or shutters and the gameplay would be flawless
Click to expand...

You cant use the same savegames. It will always be a progressive play. So even if you only bench for 1 minute. The 20th bench will be 20 minutes later ingame. 😉
 
ShintaiDK said:
You cant use the same savegames. It will always be a progressive play. So even if you only bench for 1 minute. The 20th bench will be 20 minutes later ingame. 😉
Click to expand...

That sucks. 🙂 I hated when a hurricane flattened my just newly build area and basically made me broke. -> reload... 😀
 
SPBHM said:
poor performance by the i3, and when you consider the price difference ($130 to $180) for some i5 like the 3.1GHz 3350P, it's hard to justify not going with the i5 for a gaming PC,
it would be almost twice the framerate for this.

the 920 still delivers amazing performance considering the low clock.
Click to expand...

It just shows that Dualcores even with HT are at their vanishing point for modern titles. The Core i7 920 has the cores and the threads to stand besides the newer chips.
 
I call shens. No one can get that game to work properly let alone long enough to run benchmarks.
 
Last edited:
jhu said:
I call shens. No one can get that game to work properly let alone long enough to run benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Plus I would imagine the results depend on the internet connection, since the game offloads a ton to the cloud </sarcasm>

At least we'll always have Simcity 2K :biggrin:
 
beginner99 said:
That sucks. 🙂 I hated when a hurricane flattened my just newly build area and basically made me broke. -> reload... 😀
Click to expand...

One of the new griefs is if you build a nuclear plant and it either explodes or gets hit. Radiation for 20-30 years. And thats a long time.
 
Pretty much scales with clockspeed, IPC, and cache. No real surprise considering the engine is basically single threaded. It only offloads the graphics rendering to the 2nd core.

Hence the extremely low CPU usage.
 
Graph doesn't match up with my experience. This runs fine on my old laptop with a dual 2.4 core 2 and geforce 9500GS. Sure settings are low but the game is completely playable and while not shiny shiny doesn't look ugly.

Hence if you turn the settings down which in the real world people with old cpu's will as they won't be running a titan and it's fine.
 
It looks like it uses a lot of cache instead of cores.

Athlon X2 to Phenom X2 is almost doubled.

I think that's why it seems to scale so well for the 920 and PD since they have a decent cache size.
 
I don't understand why the moar core chips did better when it was said in the review that the game only utilized 4 cores. If only 4 cores were being used, the 3930K should be slower than the 3770K.
 
39xxK has moar cache 😉. Also moar memory BW which never hurts. All in all: moar moar which is bettar. 😀
 
inf64 said:
39xxK has moar cache 😉. Also moar memory BW which never hurts. All in all: moar moar which is bettar. 😀
Click to expand...

Yea, but it also looks GPU limited. Both hex core intels, 3770k and 3570k are essentially the same framerate. Also doesn't scale with clockspeed with intel but does with AMD, although never quite reaching intel at much lower speed.

Very strange results overall.
 
crashtech said:
I don't understand why the moar core chips did better when it was said in the review that the game only utilized 4 cores. If only 4 cores were being used, the 3930K should be slower than the 3770K.
Click to expand...

it's a crap benchmark and there is a huge margin of error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top